Ubar

Yevamot (7:3) | Yisrael Bankier | a year ago

The Mishnah (7:3) discusses a case where a bat yisrael married a
kohen and was therefore allowed to eat terumah. Her husband then
passed away and she was left expecting a child. R' Yossi teaches that
any servants that she brought into the marriage would not be able to eat
terumah. The avadim referred to are those that were brought in as
nechsei tzon barzel. In other words, these avadim were given to the
husband, yet their value was written into the ketubah. If he would
divorce her, then despite any fluctuation in value, he would be required
to pay here the value written in the ketubah. After the death of the
husband, these avadim become the property of the heirs. Rashi
explains that these avadim would not be able to eat terumah even if
there were other children from that marriage; meaning even though the
mother would be able to continue to eat terumah. The Mishnah
explains that the avadim cannot eat terumah since the ubar – the
unborn child – has a share in their ownership.

The Gemara (67a) probes the logic behind R' Yossi's position. One
suggestion is that only a yelud – one that is born – has the capacity
to allow others to eat terumah. This is based on the pasuk – "… one
born in his house may eat his food" (Vayikra 22:11). Alternatively,
the Gemara suggest that the reason is that the ubar is consider a
zar – a non-kohen – until it is born. In other words, since the
mother was not a born a kohen, the ubar has the same status as the
mother until it is born.

The Gemara explains that the practical difference between these two
explanations is in the case where the mother is a bat kohen. According
to the first understanding, only a yelud can enable others to eat
terumah, in this case also, the avadim would not be able to eat
terumah. According to the second understanding, since the mother is a
bat kohen, the ubar would not be defined as a zar and the avadim
would be able to eat terumah.

The Tosfot (s.v. lemai) argues that in truth everyone agrees with
the above derasha that only a yelud allows others to eat. The reason
is that we learn that this is the basis for another halacha. Consider
that case of a bat Yisrael that is married to a kohen. The husband
subsequently passes away, and she is left expecting the only child. The
ubar does not allow her to eat terumah. The Tosfot argues that
treating the ubar as a zar would not prevent her from eating
terumah since we learnt that even if the only descendant from this
marriage was a mamzer it would allow her to continue to eat terumah.
Consequently, it is only because of the derasha that only a yelud
allows one to eat terumah that explains why the pregnant bat Yisrael
cannot eat terumah. The Tosfot continues that issue the Gemara
addresses here is whether that exposition applies to avadim as well.
In other words, one might think that that exposition only applies to the
mother, the bat Yisrael, since it is from this pasuk that we derive
that she can continue to eat terumah if she has offspring from the
marriage. Avadim on the other hand, are allowed to eat terumah
because they are considered the property of the kohen. Consequently,
one may think that the requirement of a yelud in this case would not
apply. Therefore, the Gemara present the two possibilities: either it
does apply here as well, or the reason the avadim cannot eat terumah
is because the ubar is consider a zar.

The Rashash (on the Mishnah) however explains that according to the
understanding in our case that the ubar is a zar, it is also the
reason why if there are no other children the mother would not be able
to continue to eat terumah (until the child was born). He maintains
that this does not contradict the rule that even a descendant that was a
mamzar would allow her to eat terumah. The Rashash explains that
while the ubar is in the mother's womb, it is considered like one of
her limbs and not (yet) considered a descendant of her husband - the
kohen.